User talk:Wolfman/4

Archive 4 Archive 3 Archive 2 Archive 1

The arbitration matter of Rex071404 is closed

Excerpt:

2) Rex071404, Bkonrad and others who have committed petty offenses are admonished to consult Wikipedia:Wikiquette and to conform their edits to that standard.

Passed 6 to 0

3) Rex071404 is banned for 4 months from editing Wikipedia articles which concern United States politics.

Passed 6 to 0

4.1) Rex071404 is banned from reverting any article for six months.

Passed 5 to 0 with 1 abstain

5) In view of his demonstrated deficiencies in engaging in and interpreting the results of research Rex071404 is required to cite a relevant authority, either by footnote or by comment embedded in the text, which supports every [disputed] edit he makes.

Passed 5 to 1

For principles, findings of fact, and enforcement see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rex071404#Final decision. --mav 05:08, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

SBVT talk archives problem

There was some problem about archiving the talk page for SBVT. I thought it had been resolved but the earliest archives seem to be missing. (The current discussion is at Talk:Swift Vets and POWs for Truth. Maybe the page move was part of the problem.) I know you spent some time trying to straighten out the archives. Do you know what the problem is? JamesMLane 18:20, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2004/Candidate statements/Discussion

Please note that I have created Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2004/Candidate statements/Discussion. I also dislike the new format used at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2004/Candidate statements/Endorsements. Shorne 13:27, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hmmm.

4 to 3 is not to bad. Plus the template was always reasonably controversial, from what I understand. Anyway, I've removed it now and I've made my decision based on my best judgement as an admin. If you'd like it back you can go to the undeletion page... - Ta bu shi da yu 16:01, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yitzhak Shamir

Just to express my appriciation regarding your edit to my additions to this page. After considering my entry and your edit, I appriciate this paragraph belongs to the Stern Gang entry and not on the Shamir page.

This is another example of how the wisdom of the collective can improve the standard of our articles

Happy editing

Goodall

Carrom

I've had something of a dispute with IP user 194.106.46.120 who keeps on adding external links to CarromShop.com (and associates) to Carrom. I removed them, he added them back.

I emailed him and he replied "We were just trying to add a useful link - Carrom shop has lots of information about the game and is very popular. Any other company has the right to add their link as well, we are not spamming or anything like that. Many people who find that article will be looking to buy a board, yes they can use a search engine, but why not just provide them with a link right there."

This struck me as rather tenuous. I tried spinning off the links to buy boards into one line at the bottom (and adding some other websites for balance), but guess what, he changes it back and remove his competitors. So I think removing them all is the best course of action (as you have done). Looking at Special:Contributions/194.106.46.120 suggests he does not have much of a desire to build an encylopedia. Matthewmayer 06:38, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Speedy delete

Thanks for the info. I must have misspelled the name when I went to search for that Fludd guy. I didn't get any relevant hits at all. - Lucky 6.9 17:26, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

thx

Hey, thanks for the heads up on my typo and for moving my vfd comment. PnGrata

Vote on Wikipedia:Three revert rule enforcement

Hi Wolfman. Anthony DiPierro is claiming you voted twice on the Wikipedia:Three revert rule enforcement page (see edit history for the page and his summary of the votes). Could you possibly go there and clarify? Thanks. Jayjg 01:42, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Political Edits?

Why are you stalking my edits? I'm trying to add accuracy and detract from bias on Bill Clinton and Jesusland. Isn't a balanced POV demanded here? I'm a political consultant that worked proudly with the Clinton presidency (directly under TWS-435) & you have no idea what I'd gone though. It's very disheartening to see my experience belittled by this community for the sake of political bias. I only want the good and the bad of the past accurately explained, & I thought my experience would be valued - if I am increadibly naive as to the POV of Wikipedia & politics, I guess I'll know soon enough. --Corwin8 14:19, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Indeed a balanced POV is demanded. That is precisely why I reverted you. You seem to be having some difficulty with the concept. Frankly, I don't care who you claim to be, what credentials you claim to have, or who you claim to support. I know POV pushing when I see it, and that's why I reverted you. See my detailed list of examples on your Talk page. Wolfman 14:50, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Back at ya. Sure, I know NPOV censoring when I see it. Are you sincerely interested in authorized links to back up my positions? Without getting into a long debate, I want to present the following to you. First, attempting to kill a Head of State, or former Head of State, is accepted as an act of war in most countries. It is not always acted as such, but that is how it is seen. If you sincerely dispute this, I'll do the work & send you the link. Also, the interim elections in 1994 where the Democrats lost Congressmen & Governors were a result of Clinton's first two years in office. It was historic in that the Democrats lost their long time majority in the government. This did happen. Also, it's true that Saddam planned an assasination of Bush Sr (oops, not al-qaeda) and Clinton even made a statement to that effect. Would a link to that statement prove it to you? Are you sincerely interested in authenticated links on this, from .gov websites? Yeah, I've been around the block a few times myself. In the case of politics on this website, it seems that "balanced POV" means accepting the political bigotry of the admins. That's O.K., manipulating people emotionally is what geniuses like Carville are paid to do. Clinton is a master speechmaker, and James Carville is the political genius of this generation [1]. Anyway, this is a lot longer than I meant it to be. But you're not fooling me. I know the smelly language of spin when I see it, and I see it smeared all over you. You're exactly what we made you. James would be proud. Bye. --Corwin8 22:15, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Would you care to point to a POV edit I have made? Or are you just upset that I removed yours?

I initially doubted you were actually a political consultant. But based on your response, I am quite certain you are. You employ the classic political tactic of attacking a straw man instead of responding to my actual comments. For example, I'm well aware that Dems lost the majority in the 1994 election, nor did I remove that information (which you had not added anyway). What I removed was your POV characterization of that election and the reasons for the result.

Similarly, I pointed out problems with your inclusion of the phrase "it should be noted that ... is an act of war". First, why should this be noted rather than just the facts of the matter? You included that phrase to lead the reader to a conclusion, not to inform the reader. Second, as you now note, the information you added was false. Wolfman 01:04, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I've seen a speech by George W Bush where he referred to Saddam as "the man who tried to kill my dad" or something similar. Corwin8, it almost always certainly helps if you can include sources to any edits. You'll find a lot of people like Wolfman who are happy to revert on sight! :) --Rebroad 00:23, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yes, well Corwin8 couldn't possibly have included a reference for his facts. Because he had the facts wrong. His edit was that al-qaeda, not Saddam, plotted to kill Bush. Yes, I do tend to revert untrue additions on sight. Funny thing about encyclopedias, true facts are generally preferred to made-up-shit. Wolfman 06:50, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Glad to hear it! Although only an infinitely wise person would be able to recognise all of them on sight! --Rebroad 10:41, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well, I can't pretend to notice all cases of POV made-up-shit edit orgies. Wish I could, I'd revert them all. But sometimes they just make it so obvious, like Corwin8. So, I can't really take as much credit as I'd like to for being astute in this instance. Wolfman 15:21, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your assistance on Jesusland map. I'm sure we can work out some additions to that article, if needed, in an NPOV manner. - Scooter 19:54, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)